justhandled_utm_link_consistency_checker

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a cost of $0.05 USDC on Base mainnet, which is a valuable behavioral trait, but it doesn't mention whether the tool is read-only, external calls, rate limits, or data handling. The cost disclosure adds some transparency, but the overall behavioral picture remains incomplete.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes a critical cost detail without any redundancy. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has two parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. The description gives a good list of checks and cost, but lacks information about the expected return format, the exact policy schema, or any post-execution behavior. For a checker tool with this complexity, more context would be needed for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies that the 'links' parameter contains campaign links and that 'policy' relates to policy violations, but it doesn't explain the structure of the policy object or how it maps to the checks. Partial semantic support, but not thorough.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Check') and a resource ('campaign links') while enumerating concrete checks (missing UTMs, duplicates, case drift, policy violations, PII). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like justhandled_redirect_map_preflight or justhandled_shopify_product_csv_preflight.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool—whenever campaign links need UTM consistency checks—but does not explicitly mention any exclusions or alternatives. The naming and sibling list make the scope obvious enough for a 4.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.